Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 197 (MP)

Vidhyaram v. State of M. P.

2017-02-07

ANAND PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. With consent heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging inaction on the part of respondents in not deciding the stay application of the petitioner in pending appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the dispute in relation to certain land alleged to be of temple is pending consideration before respondent No.1 wherein the prayer for allotment of the land has been made and for that appropriate direction has been issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.5709/2015. Meanwhile, the respondents have initiated the proceedings under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the order was passed on 28.12.2015 (Annexure P-3) which gave cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appellate authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil and District Bhind. Meeting the same fate, petitioner reagitated his prayer by way of second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Along with appeal, an application for stay has also been preferred by the petitioner seeking protection in respect of dispossession as according to him he is in continuous possession since 1912. Said application for stay has not been decided, meanwhile petitioner felt the threat for dispossession. 4. In short, he seeks a direction to respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena for consideration of his application of interim protection and meanwhile seek protection from dispossession. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the prayer of petitioner and vehemently contested the case by filing the application for dismissal of the petition placing certain documents and contended that the controversy in respect of the property in dispute has been settled uptil this Court wherein this Court has passed the judgment dated 5.9.2013 in Second Appeal No.1353/2005 and dismissed the same being devoid of any substantial question of law. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred the review petition bearing No.414/2013 which met the same fate vide order dated 12.5.2015. The another review petition vide Miscellaneous Civil Case No.238/2015 was also preferred which got dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2015. Therefore, according to him once the controversy in question has attained finality; thus petitioner cannot reagitate the same. He pleads that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The another review petition vide Miscellaneous Civil Case No.238/2015 was also preferred which got dismissed vide order dated 10.8.2015. Therefore, according to him once the controversy in question has attained finality; thus petitioner cannot reagitate the same. He pleads that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He also submits that possession of the disputed property has also been taken on dated 17.2.2016, therefore, he cannot claim any stay from dispossession. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The case appears to have chequered history. Both the parties are at loggerheads in respect of the land appurtenant to Mandir Shri Bhindirishi. From the record, it appears that one stream of litigation in respect of property in question has attained finality by way of judgment dated 5.9.2013 passed in Second Appeal No.1353/2005. Being crestfallen from the effect of the said judgment, petitioner has opened a new stream of litigation in which the appeal is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. Although Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 have discussed the controversy in detail, still the appeal is pending along with the application for interim protection. At the same time, from the documents filed by respondent No.3 wherein Kabja Panchnama dated 17.2.2016 has also been annexed it reflects that petitioner has been dispossessed from the disputed property which he claims to be of his own, therefore, at this stage, interim protection in respect of dispossession cannot be given to the petitioner, but due to the fact that the appeal is pending before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, therefore, in the fitness of things, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena to consider and decide the appeal as well as the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law wherein the application be decided within fifteen days from the date of appearance of the parties and also the appeal within three months thereafter, so that the controversy may put to rest. 8. Till the application for stay is decided by the appellate authority, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as it exists today. 8. Till the application for stay is decided by the appellate authority, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as it exists today. While deciding the application for stay as well as appeal, adequate opportunity of hearing and liberty to submit documents be given to the respondents/State as well as respondent No.3 herein. Respondents are at liberty to place the documents including the Kabja Panchnama dated 17.2.2016 while opposing the application for stay preferred by the petitioner. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena on 21.2.2017 along with certified copy of this order, for getting the further dates from the appellate authority. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case and case would be decided on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.